JEROME WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court's failure to make required findings before imposing a habitual offender sentence is reversible error, and that mandatory minimums for battery on the elderly only apply to aggravated batteries.
[1] A trial court must make the findings required by section 775.084(1)(a), Florida Statutes, before imposing a habitual offender sentence, absent a stipulation by the defens…
[2] Failure to make the requisite findings for habitual offender sentencing constitutes reversible error.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant pleaded guilty to several offenses and was sentenced as a habitual offender. The State conceded error regarding a mandatory minimum sentence…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Attempted Sexual Battery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This cause is before us on appeal from a judgment and sentence following a plea of guilty to burglary while armed, kidnapping without a firearm, robbery without a firearm, battery on a person 65 years of age or older, and attempted sexual battery. No sentence was agreed upon in exchange for appellant’s plea.
In Anderson v. State, 592 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), this court held that absent a stipulation by the defense, the trial court must make the findings required by section 775.084(l)(a), Florida Statutes, before imposing a habitual offender sentence. The trial court’s failure to make such findings in the instant case is reversible error. On remand, the trial court may sentence appellant as a habitual offender if the requisite findings are made and supported by the evidence. Anderson, supra.
In addition, the State correctly concedes that the trial court erred in sentencing appellant to a mandatory minimum term for battery on a person over the age of 65. The minimum mandatory provisions of section 784.08, Florida Statutes, only apply to aggravated batteries.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment but reverse the sentence for proceedings consistent herewith.
BOOTH, SHIVERS and WEBSTER, JJ., concur. ON MOTION FOR CERTIFICATION
Appellee moves this court for certification of the same question certified in Anderson v. State, 592 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In view of our express reliance on Anderson, the motion is granted and the following question certified as one of great public importance: Does the holding in Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla.1980), that the State had no burden of proof as to whether the convictions necessary for habitual felony offender sentencing have been pardoned or set aside, in that they are “affirmative defenses available to [a defendant],” Eutsey at 226, relieve the trial court of its statutory obligation to make findings regarding those factors, if the defendant does not affirmatively raise as a defense that the qualifying convictions provided by the State have been pardoned or set aside?
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spriggs v. State, 615 So. 2d 828 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…rict determined that the appellant had waived the issue because he conceded at sentencing that he had the requisite prior felony record to qualify as a HFO. . We are aware of the following cases and note their inapplicability. In Williams v. State, 608 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), the court said: “No sentence was agreed upon in exchange for appellant’s plea.” This is obviously distinguishable from our case where Spriggs agreed to be sentenced as a HFO as part of the plea arrangement. In Trujillo-Pentate v…
-
State v. Williams, 616 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 1993)…SHAW, Justice. We have for review Williams v. State, 608 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), wherein the district court certified a question of great public importance. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We have since answered the question in State v. Rucker, 613 So. 2d 460 (Fla.1993). We quash William…
Authorities Cited
- Fredford James Eutsey v. State, 383 So. 2d 219 (Fla. 1980)
- Anderson v. State, 592 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)